HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 0609 03
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF REVISIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO THE COUNTY'S UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO PROTECT
AQUIFERS AGAINST SEA WATER INTRUSION
[MLA03-202]
}
}
} ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
}
}
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.01O et seq.,
adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), a Plan that was
originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and subsequently later
amended, and;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Plan, the County adopted its GMA-derived
development regulations, known locally as the Unified Development Code (or "UDC"),
in December 2000 to be effective as of January 16,2001, and;
WHEREAS, the UDC, upon its adoption, was timely challenged through means
of not less than five Petition For Reviews ("PFRs") filed with the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB"), and
WHEREAS, one of the five timely PFRs was filed by the Olympic Environmental
Council ("OEC") and the Shine Community Action Council ("Shine Council"); and
WHEREAS, the WWGMHB issued Compliance Order No. 01-2-0015 on
December 5,2002, giving the County 90 days to adopt measures specific to Marrowstone
Island and 180 days to adopt countywide measures; and
WHEREAS, Master Land Use Application (MLA03-202) is a package that
contains proposed line-in/line-out amendments for the UDC and that MLA03-202 was
reviewed by the Planning Commission and the public during a public process; and
WHEREAS, that public process is now complete;
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners that they approve the following revisions and additions to the UDC and;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that they make the following
general Findings of Facts applicable to these revisions and additions to the UDC:
Section 1 - General Findings of Fact for Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
1.
The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or UDC in December 2000.
2.
The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
3.
These amendments to the County's UDC are being made in order to resolve a
particular petition before the WWGMHB, specifically the PFR timely filed by
OEC and Shine Council.
4.
Proposed UDC amendments were prepared by the Planning Commission with the
assistance of a Planning Commission Seawater Intrusion Committee and County
staff.
5.
The Planning Commission discussed the contents ofMLA03-202 at several
different Planning Commission meetings in early 2003.
6.
A public hearing on the proposed UDC amendments occurred before the Planning
Commission on April 30, 2003.
7.
The Planning Commission made a recommendation on May 7, 2003 and submitted
that recommendation to the Board via County staff.
8.
The Planning Commission made a supplement to that recommendation on May 21,
2003 and submitted that supplement to the Board via County staff.
9.
The Board held a public hearing on MLA03-202, specifically the Planning
Commission recommendation, on May 27,2003.
10.
The Board discussed MLA03-202 at public sessions and unanimously accepted a
motion to adopt UDC amendments on June 2, 2003.
2 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Adoption of this amending language (which alters the UDC) promotes the health
and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County.
Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's Unified Development Code, all proposed
amendments to the GMA-derived development regulations should be analyzed, in
part, through the "filter" of the seven growth management indicators (or "GMI")
listed at UDC §9.5.4(b), although those GMI represent only some of the criteria
that the County Commission must use when deciding whether to adopt or reject a
proposed UDC amendment.
Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be
applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission
has considered.
However, the County Commission, in order to comply with UDC Section 9,
should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI
listed there and do so now.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the County Commission finds, as an example
of numerous findings they might make with respect to (b)(1), that in the short-term
the population of this County has not increased as quickly as the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned.
Regardless of the possible fluctuation in the rate of population growth that does
occur or might occur in this County the adoption of these UDC amendments
supports GMA goals to protect critical aquifer recharge areas.
The County Commission finds that the other six' growth management indicators'
listed at UDC §9.5.4(b )(2) to (b )(7) are not applicable to these amendments to the
GMA-derived development regulations.
The County Commission finds that the' growth management indicators' found
within the UDC at §9.8.l(b )(1) and (b )(2) are not applicable to this particular
Ordinance or these particular revisions to the County's UDC because the
amendments arise from the mandates of a Hearings Board Order rather than
arising from a proposal by the staff, the elected Commissioners or a citizen.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.l(b )(3), the County Commission
finds that there has been much public testimony and concern on the issue of
seawater intrusion during the public process associated with MLAO3-202 and that
therefore there is interest in this issue among the general public and among the
residents of Marrowstone Island in particular.
3 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.l(b )(3), the County Commission
finds that the Planning Commission, consisting of appointed members who reflect
the varied viewpoints held by the citizens of Jefferson County, recommended
amendments to the development regulations AND that the recommendation by the
Planning Commission indicates that these amendments to the development
regulations are therefore in conformance with the widely-held values of the
citizens of this County.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.l(b )(3), the County Commission
finds that the 2-0 vote by the County Commission in support of these amendments
to the development regulations, as recommended by the Planning Commission
with some exceptions, is further proof that these amendments are in conformance
with widely-held values of the citizens of this County.
On April 18, 2003, the County Department of Community Development ("DCD")
issued an "Integrated GMA/SEPA Document & Notice of Hearing." This
document simultaneously served three purposes: it 1) notified the Washington
State Office of Community Development of this County's intent to amend its
GMA-driven development regulations, 2) provided a formal notice of adoption of
existing environmental documents to fulfill requirements under the State
Environmental Policy Act, and 3) informed the world that the Planning
Commission would hold a public hearing on this topic on April 30, 2003.
On May 30,2003, County staff provided to the Board a recommendation by
County Natural Resources and DCD for UDC amendments associated with
MLA03-202.
The original proposal packaged as MLA03-202, the Planning Commission and
County staff recommendations, and other documents and information were posted
on a County web page dedicated to seawater intrusion policy:
http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/SEAW A TER%20INTRUSION
.htm.
The public participation requirements of the GMA have been satisfied with respect
to these amendments to the County's development regulations.
The WWGMHB December 2002 Compliance Order No. 01-2-0015 required five
major changes to the UDC for compliance to be obtained.
In response to Item # 1 of the Compliance Order, the Board of Commissioners
adopted the Planning Commission recommendation that SIPZ continue to be
mapped based on one sample; however, the Planning Commission recommended
obtaining more data on all existing wells, to improve the baseline.
4 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Public comment indicated that mapping SIPZ based on one sample may be overly
cautious; however, the County Commissioners have retained mapping SIPZ based
on one sample based on the Hearings Board Order and to be cautiously protective.
In response to Item # 1 of the Compliance Order, an applicant wishing to use an
individual well in which water quality testing indicates a chloride reading in
excess of 200 mg/L cannot use the well for proof of potable water for a building
permit, unless one of two situations exist.
The first option for use of a well greater than 200 mg/L is that the applicant
originally obtained a variance pursuant to WAC 173-160-106 for that new well
from the Department of Ecology.
The second option for use of a well greater than 200 mg/L is that the applicant has
obtained a hydrogeologic assessment demonstrating that use of the well will not
cause any detrimental interference with existing water rights and is not detrimental
to the public interest.
Therefore, in the absence of obtaining EITHER a variance from the State
Department of Ecology OR a hydrogeologic assessment demonstrating that use of
the well will not cause any detrimental interference with existing water rights and
is not detrimental to the public interest, a well showing a chloride reading in
excess of 200 mg/L cannot be used as proof of potable water.
In addition, the hydrogeologic assessment will be transmitted to the State
Department of Ecology for review and comment by that state agency.
The December, 2002 WWGMHB Compliance Order, at Item #2, required
Jefferson County to, "Clearly define what will constitute 'degradation' of
groundwater under the UDC and Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy".
In response to Item #2 of the Compliance Order, the Board of Commissioners
adopted language that acknowledges that Washington State water appropriations
are regulated by RCW 90.03 and RCW 90.44, while the requirements under the
Growth Management Act are specified in RCW 36.70A and RCW 19.27.097.
Restrictions and requirements adopted to protect ground water quality from
seawater intrusion require compliance with all applicable laws, including RCW
90.03 and RCW 90.44 as well as RCW 36.70A and RCW 19.27.097.
RCW 90.03.010 states, "Subject to existing rights all waters within the state
belong to the public, and any right thereto, or to the use thereof, shall be hereafter
5 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
acquired only by appropriation for a beneficial use and in the manner provided and
not otherwise."
RCW 90.44.040 states, "Subject to existing rights, all natural ground waters of the
state as defined in RCW 90.44.035, also all artificial ground waters that have been
abandoned or forfeited, are hereby declared to be public ground waters and to
belong to the public and to be subject to appropriation for beneficial use under the
terms of this chapter and not otherwise."
RCW 90.03.290 requires that the Department of Ecology makes a determination
of whether a water right should be granted not based on some constant or "one
size fits all" methodology, but instead uses four scientific and legal tests, which in
summary are: 1) Water must be available, 2) There must be no detriment or injury
to existing rights (also referred to as impainnent), 3) The water use must be
beneficial, and 4) The water use must be in the public interest.
A Washington State Department of Ecology staff hydro geologist, although not
representing official agency opinion, indicated through electronic communication
that he was "not aware of any policies or rules regarding the type of analysis that
must be performed to determine compliance with the anti-degradation policy".
The above statements from the Ecology hydrogeologist indicate that it is
inconsistent with his knowledge of hydrogeology to adopt specific standards for
ground water degradation that could be used in all cases to make a decision for
determining impacts to aquifers. Best Available Science suggests that the analysis
requires each application, i.e., each well and/or request for a water right, to be
reviewed with appropriate hydrogeologic information, and evaluation by a
properly trained professional scientist.
Existing state guidance documents developed in 1993 to implement the GMA
section RCW 19.27.097 regarding water availability for building permits entitled
"Guidelines for Determining Water Availability for New Buildings" (Ecology
Publication 93-27), states, "investigation and identification of well interference
problems and impairment to senior rights is the responsibility of the Washington
Department of Ecology."
There is no justification in the record why Jefferson County can rely on any
procedure that is inconsistent with the existing process used by the Department of
Ecology to determine water rights approval for determining whether the use of a
particular well will cause impairment of existing water rights, or to deviate from
the process laid out in the Guidelines for Determining Water Availability for New
Buildings in requesting that the Department of Ecology investigate well
interference and impairment issues, including impacts from seawater intrusion.
6 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLAO3-202 Seawater Intrusion
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
In other words, if the County created a "one size fits all" degradation methodology
or test, then such a test would neither conform to best available science nor would
it dovetail with what Ecology does to determine if a particular application for a
water right, which may be based upon a groundwater source, should be granted.
The County Commissioners have analyzed the information in the record and
determined that it is not possible to follow guidance by the Department of Ecology
and the Best Available Science and meet the requirement set out in the order
regarding the need to clearly define what will constitute degradation under the
UDC for each hydrogeologic assessment. Instead the County will rely on the
existing criteria under RCW 90.03.290 as is implemented by the Washington
Department of Ecology.
In order to determine potential for aquifer degradation over time, each new
building permit issued by Jefferson County with a well in an At Risk SIPZ, a High
Risk SIPZ, and anywhere on Marrowstone Island will be monitored for chloride
and water usage, and the water quality data will be analyzed using a statistical
procedure known as the Sen's Slope Indicator Test (or equivalent statistical
procedure), which will determine if degradation is occurring as is necessary to
implement the Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy.
In response to Item #3 of the Compliance Order, the County Commissioners did
not make any changes but reiterate that the existing UDC Section 1.4.2 contains
provisions for annual remapping of all environmentally sensitive area maps.
In response to Item #4 of the Compliance Order, the County Commissioners have
finalized their MOA with the Jefferson County PUD #1 and have sponsored two
seawater intrusion educational workshops in the last 6 months. Continued
education will occur through a number of venues.
F or the purposes of determining degradation over time, each well will be
monitored for chloride, and that data will be analyzed using a statistical procedure
known as the Sen's Slope Indicator Test (or equivalent statistical procedure),
which will determine if degradation is occurring as is necessary to implement the
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy.
In response to the requirements specific to Marrowstone Island in the Compliance
Order, the County Commissioners have adopted a moratorium on future
subdivision until public water is available from an off-island source, have required
groundwater and water use monitoring, have required installation of a variable
speed pump, flow meter and use of a 1,000 gallon storage tank all as a condition
on each and every new building permit that is issued. Additional water
7 0£9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLA03-202 Seawater Intrusion
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
conservation measures are required in the High Risk SIPZ on Marrowstone Island,
as they are in the rest of Jefferson County
In additional, the County Commissioners have passed a resolution strongly
supporting that public water be provided for Marrowstone Island within two years.
The County Commissioners have analyzed the revised list of water conservation
measures that are recommended in Coastal SIPZ, recommended in At-Risk SIPZ
and mandatory in High Risk SIPZ, and based on the Planning Commission
recommendations and other public input, have included restrictions that will result
in a significantly higher level of aquifer protection.
The water conservation measures that are required in all High Risk SIPZ will be
updated as new information and technologies are developed.
The water conservation measures adopted by the County Commissioners are far
more stringent than any other county in Washington State, even though water
shortages and water quality problems are far more severe in other counties in
Washington, including documentation of seawater intrusion.
Actions taken are consistent with following the precautionary principle in the
GMA that states where data are lacking, counties should be cautious on the side of
protection.
The adopted measures rely on the recommendation from the Planning
Commission, additional public input, agency input, written and verbal comments,
and specific comments made by petitioners' representative in the public hearings.
Specific examples of how additional protection measures were adopted based on
public comment and petitioners' public statements include the restriction of turf
cultivation and golf courses in all SIPZ, the restriction from using well water for
outdoor irrigation in High Risk SIPZ and the restriction to not allow water
softeners that utilize salt in High Risk SIPZ.
The County asserts it has satisfied the Compliance Order of December 2002 issued
with respect to #01-2-0015.
Adoption of this Ordinance is pursuant to RCW 36.70.620.
This ordinance will be reviewed for continuation of applicability in January 2005."
Section 2 - Language Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
The language of the attached Exhibit, consisting of nine (9) pages, is hereby adopted as
the detailed revisions and additions to the UDC.
8 of9
ORDINANCE NO. 06-0609-03
re: MLA03-202 Seawater Intrusion
Section 3 - Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance
or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4 - Effective Date:
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners, also known herein as the County Commission.
,Î,)\\~n (;¡¡/':~PROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June
"...~.~!.....'.. "."';"
, 'f'*! ,.~.: ~ I
';'~ (t.;/.....".~...'E.,~f~\~' .~:,' JEFFERSON COUNTY
, . 'j .X:> ""; . L. .' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
:,~ .~~~r / 1
'?;;~~
Clerk of the Board
2003.
~ :rf/1i2
.-:;)
Dan Titterness, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
^C'\ rJ ^/1 ,, <+103
OV~ ~"">;J
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
(Excused Absence)
Wendi H. Wrinkle, Member
9 of9
Attachment to Ordinance No. 06-0609-03
Unified Development Code (UDC) Line-ln/Line-Out Amendments
I Section 2 . Definitions
2.3 Definitions.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Selected watersheds and critical aquifers where resources are potentially threatened by salt
'Nater intrusion or primary contaminants or limited due to poor recharge.Areas with a critical
recharQinQ effect on aquifers used for potable water.
Alterative Water System. Alternative
Any Source source of water for an individual single-family use th3t is not other than a legally
constructed well that produces more than 400 gallons per day or an approved public water
system that can provide adequate water for the intended use of a structure.
Individual Water System. Individual (Residential)
Any water supply system which is not subject to the State Board of Health Drinking Water
ReQulations. Chapter 246-290 WAC. An individual water supply system Qenerally provides water
to one /\ water system serving-a-single-family residence and no more than one accessory
dwelling unit. or in the case of family farms, four or fewer connections on the same farm.
Water System. Public
Any water system subject to the State Board of Health DrinkinQ Water Requlations, Chapter 246-
290 WAC. excludinQ a system servinQ only one single-family residence or a system with four or
fewer connections all of which serve residences on the same farm, providinq piped water for
human consumption. includinQ (a) any collection, treatment, storaQe or distribution facilities which
are under control of the purveyor and used primarily in connection with a system. and (b) any
collection of pretreatment storaQe facilities which are not under the control of the purveyor but are
primarily used in connection with the system.
Groundwater
(See "Water. Ground.")
Water. Ground
All waters that exist beneath the land surface or beneath the bed of any stream. lake or reservoir,
or any other body of water within the boundaries of the state, as defined in RCW 90.44.035.
Potable Water, Potable
Water suitable for ~human consumption.
Water Purveyor
Anv aqencv or subdivision of the state or any municipal corporation, firm, company. mutual or
cooperative association. institution. partnership. or person or any other entity that owns or
operates a public water system. Includes the authorized aqents of any such entitites.
Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ)
Aquifers and land overlvinq aquifers with some deqree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion.
Well (or J\.pproved Water System, Approved}
Any water source approved by the County Health Department and Washington Department of
Health, including but not limited to, wells, ponds, roof collection systems, treated systems, and
public water supplies. (See "Individual \I\later System".)
I Section 3 . Land Use Districts
3.6 Overlay Districts
3.6.5
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS.
a. Classification. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are naturally susceptible due to the
existence of permeable soils or a seawater wedge in coastline aquifers. Certain overlying
land uses can lead to water quality and/or quantity degradation. The following
classifications define Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
(1) Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas are those with geologic and hydrologic
conditions that promote rapid infiltration of recharge waters to groundwater aquifers.
For the purposes of this section, unless otherwise determined by preparation of an
Aquifer Recharge Area Report authorized under this section, the following geologic
units, as identified from available State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources geologic mapping, define Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas for east
Jefferson County:
i. Alluvial fans (Ha),
ii. Artificial fill (Hx),
Hi. Beach sand & gravel (Hb),
iv. Dune sand (Hd),
v. Flood plain alluvium (Hf),
vi. Vashon recessional outwash in deltas and alluvial fans (Vrd),
vii. Vashon recessional outwash in meltwater channels (Vro) ,
viii. Vashon ice contact stratified drift (Vi),
ix. Vashon ablation till (Vat),
x. Vashon advance outwash (Vao),
xi. Whidbey formation (Pw), and
xii. Pre-Vashon stratified drift (Py).
(2) Those areas meeting the requirements of Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas
(above) and which are overlain by the following land uses as identified in this Code
are subject to the provisions of the protection standards in this Section:
i. All Industrial Land Uses
ii. All Commercial Uses
iii. All Rural Residential Land Uses
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
2
June 2, 2003
iv.
v.
A. requiring a Discretionary Use or Conditional Use Permit or
B. with nonconforming uses that would otherwise require a Discretionary Use
or Conditional Use Permit
Unsewered Planned Rural Residential Developments
Unsewered residential development with gross densities greater than one unit
per acre
(3) Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas include:
i. Sole Source Aquifers designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law
93-523).
ii. Special protection areas designated by the Washington Department of Eco-
logy under Chapter 173-200 WAC.
iii. Wellhead Protection Areas determined in accordance with delineation
methodologies specified by the Washington Department of Health under
authority of Chapter 246-290 WAC.
iv. Ground Water Management Areas designated by the Washington Department
of Ecology in cooperation with local government under Chapter 173-100 WAC.
(4) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones (SIPZ) are aquifers and land overlying
aquifers with some degree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion. SIPZ are defined
either by proximity to marine shoreline or by proximity to groundwater sources that
have demonstrated high chloride readings. All islands and land area within % mile
of marine shorelines and associated aquifers together compose the coastal SIPZ.
Additionally, areas within 1000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of
chloride analyses above 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as either at
risk (between 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L) or high risk (over 200 mg/L) SIPZ. Individual
groundwater sources with a history of chloride analyses above 200 mg/L shall be
considered "sea-salt water intrusion areas," which are among the "sources or
potential sources of contamination" listed in Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-160-171 implementing code for the Water Well Construction Act.
The '.'¡hole of M~mO'.vstone Island will be desiqnated a hiqh risk SIPZ and a "sea salt
water intrusion area" per WAC 173 160 171 on December 31,2001 or when public
'I/ater is available to the Isl::1nd, whichever is sooner. Jefferson County is actively
workinq with partner aqencies to establish;) public water source on Marrowst07~
Island as a lonq term solution to aquifer deQradation due to seawater intrusion.
In some cases, high chloride readings may be indicative of connate seawater (i.e.,
relic seawater in aquifers as opposed to active seawater intrusion). When best
available science or a hydrogeologic assessment demonstrate that high chloride
readings in a particular area are due to connate seawater, the area in question shall
not be considered an at risk or high risk SIPZ. When the status of an area is in
question, the UDC Administrator is responsible for making the determination based
upon recommendation from County Department of Health and Human Services.
b. Designation. Jefferson County shall prepare and exhibit dated Critical Aquifer Recharge
Area maps which demonstrate the approximate distribution of the Susceptible Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas, and Seawater Intrusion
Protection Zones. The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area maps shall be periodically revised,
modified, and updated to reflect additional information.
1 This paragraph was established as part of an interim ordinance adopted on March 3, 2003. Adoption
of this ordinance effectively deletes this paragraph from the code.
Ordinance Attachment:
MLAO3-202
3
June 2, 2003
c. Applicability.
(1) The following land use activities are considered high impact land uses due to the
probability and/or potential magnitude of their adverse effects on groundwater and
shall be prohibited in Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas and Special Aquifer
Recharge Protection Areas. In all other areas of the County outside of Susceptible
Aquifer Recharge Areas and Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas, these
activities shall require an Aquifer Recharge Area Report pursuant to this Section.
i. Chemical manufacturing and reprocessing;
ii. Creosote/asphalt manufacturing or treatment (except that asphalt batch plants
may be permitted in Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas ONLY if such areas
lie outside of Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas and ONLY if best
management practices are implemented pursuant to sections 4.24.8d ad 6.17
of this Code and an accepted Aquifer Recharge Area Report);
Electroplating and metal coating activities;
Hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities;
Petroleum product refinement and reprocessing;
Underground storage tanks for petroleum products or other hazardous
materials;
vii. Recycling facilities as defined in this Code;
viii. Solid waste landfills;
ix. Waste piles as defined in Chapter 173-304 AC;
x. Wood and wood products preserving;
xi. Storage and primary electrical battery processing and reprocessing.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
(2) All other land uses shall be subject to the protection standards contained in this
Section and mitigating conditions included with an Aquifer Recharge Area Report,
where applicable.
(3) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones. Marine shorelines and islands are
susceptible to a condition that is known as seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is
a condition in which the saltwater/freshwater interface in an aquifer moves inland so
that wells drilled on upland areas cannot obtain freshwater suitable for public
consumption without significant additional treatment and cost. Maintaining a stable
balance in the saltwater/freshwater interface is primarily a function of the rate of
aquifer recharge (primarily through rainfall) and the rate of groundwater withdrawals
(primarily through wells). The 'Nashington Department of Ecology is the agency with
statutory authority to regulate ground'...,ater withdrawal for individual 'Neils in
Jefferson County. New development, redevelopment, and land use activities on
islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines in particular should be
developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge and maintain the
saltwater/freshwater balance to the maximum extent possible by infiltrating
stormy.'ater runoff so that it recharges the aquifer.
d. Protection Standards.
(1 )
General. The following protection standards shall apply to land use activities in
Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas and Special Aquifer Protection Areas, and
when specified in Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones, unless mitigating conditions
have been identified in a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report that has been prepared
pursuant to this section.
(2) Stormwater Disposal.
i.
In all Critical Aquifer RecharQe Areas. S§tormwater runoff shall be controlled
and treated in accordance with best management practices and facility design
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
4
June 2, 2003
ii.
standards as identified and defined in the Stormwater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin, as amended and the stormwater provisions
contained in Section 6 of this Code.
To help prevent seawater from intruding landward into underground aquifers,
all new development activity on Marrowstone Island, Indian Island and within
% mile of any marine shoreline shall be required to infiltrate all stormwater
runoff onsite. The Administrator will consider requests for exceptions to this
policy on a case-by-case basis and may roquire Q hydrogeologic assossment.
This provision is interpreted as establishinQ a hierarchy in which the first and
best alternative is on-site infiltration usinQ drywells or other methods, the
second best alternative is upland off-site disposal, and the least preferred
alternative is direct discharQe into marine waters throuqh a stormwater
tightline. In order to utilize the least preferred alternative. which is considered
an exception to the policy. applicants must demonstrate throuqh a
qeotechnical or similar report prepared by a licensed professional that both
on-site infiltration and upland off-site disposal are not practicable or feasible.
The report must include cost fiQures for comparison.
(3) On-Site Sewage Disposal.
i.
All land uses identified in Section 3.6.5.a and Special Aquifer Recharge
Protection Areas that are also classified as Susceptible Aquifer Recharge
Areas (as defined in this Section), shall be designated Areas of Special
Concern pursuant to Chapter 246-272-21501 WAC.
A. Such designation shall identify minimum land area and best management
practices for nitrogen removal as design parameters necessary for the
protection of public health and groundwater quality.
B. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adopted by action of the
Board of Health.
As new information becomes available that would classify an area as a Special
Aquifer Recharge Protection Area or an Area of Special Concern under this
Section, said area may be designated as such by the County. Any additional
Areas of Special Concern designated through this process shall receive the
same protections identified in Subsection (3)i.A and B above.
ii.
(4) Golf Courses and Other Tuñ Cultivation. In all Critical Aquifer Recharqe Areas.
GeJ-f.-9.Qllcourses shall be developed and operated in a manner consistent with
"Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation", King
County Environmental Division (now: Department of Development and Environ-
mental Services), January 1993. Recreational and institutional facilities (e.g. parks
and schools) with extensive areas of cultivated turf, shall be operated in a manner
consistent with portions of the aforementioned best management practices
pertaining to fertilizer and pesticide use, storage, and disposal. In Seawater
Intrusion Protection Zones, qolf courses and other turf cultivation usinQ Qroundwater
for irriQation shall be prohibited. unless the water source is located outside of
Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones or is an approved public water supply.
(5) Commercial Agriculture. Commercial agricultural activities, including landscaping
operations must be operated in accordance with best management practices for
fertilizer, pesticide, and animal waste management as developed by the Jefferson
County Conservation District.
(6) Above Ground Storage Tanks. Above ground tanks shall be fabricated,
constructed, installed, used and operated in a manner which prevents the release of
a hazardous substances or dangerous wastes to the ground or groundwater. Above
ground storage tanks intended to hold or store hazardous substances or dangerous
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
5
June 2, 2003
(7)
(8)
(9)
wastes are provided with an impervious containment area, equivalent to or greater
than 100 percent of the tank volume, enclosing and underlying the tank, or ensure
that other measures are undertaken as prescribed by the Uniform Fire Code which
provide an equivalent measure of protection.
Mining and Quarrying. Mining and quarrying performance standards containing
ground water protection best management practices pertaining to operation,
closure, and the operation of gravel screening, gravel crushing, cement concrete
batch plants, and asphalt concrete batch plants, where allowed, are contained in
Sections 4 and 6 of this Code.
Hazardous Materials. land use activities that generate hazardous waste, which
are not prohibited outright under this code, and which are conditionally exempt from
regulation by the Washington Department of Ecology under WAC 173-303-100, or
which use, store, or handle hazardous substances, shall be required to prepare and
submit a hazardous materials management plan that demonstrates that the
development will not have an adverse impact on ground water quality. The
hazardous materials management plan must be updated annually by the facility
owner.
Well Drilling, land Division, and Building Permits in Seawater Intrusion
Protection Zones.
i.
Well Drilling: The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates well
drilling pursuant to the Water Well Construction Act. Proposed wells,
including those exempt from permitting requirements, must be sited at least
100 feet from "known or potential sources of contamination," which include
"Sea-salt water intrusion areas" (WAC 178-160-171), unless a variance is
obtained from Ecology per WAC 173-160-106.
Subdivisions: Applications for land division (UDC Section 7) when the
::r:or3ge net density proposod is loss than fivo :Jcres per dv.'olling unit must
include specific and conclusive proof of adequate supplies of potable water
through a qualifying hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an
Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6.1 O.e) that demonstrates that the
creation of new lots and corresponding use of water will not impact the
subject aquifer such that water quality is degraded by seawater intrusion.
Marrowstone Island Subdivision Moratorium: Due to documented
seawater intrusion on Marrowstone Island and the existence of undeveloped
lots of record. Jefferson County has imposed a moratorium on additional land
divisions on the Island until such time as public water is available or it is
demonstrated throuqh the well monitoring ~rogram that qroundwater quality
is not deqradinq due to seawater intrusion.
Building Permits:
A. Evidence of potable water may be an individual well, connection to a
public water system, or an alternative system. Whatever method is
selected, the regulatory and operational standards for that method must
be met, including Jefferson County Health Codes and Washington
Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 4 of the State Guidelines for
Determininq Water Availabilitv for New Buildinqs (Ecology Publication 93-
27). investiqation and identification of well interference problems and
impairment to senior riqhts is the responsibility of the Washinqton
ii.
iii.
2 This provision, originally established as part of an interim ordinance adopted on March 3, 2003,
remains in the code upon adoption of this ordinance, with language modifications as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
6
June 2, 2003
Department of EcoloQY. If the possibility of a problem is suspected. the
local permittinQ authority should contact EcoloQY.
B. All types of building permits that require proof of potable water use are
subject to this policy, specifically building permits for new single-family
residences (SFRs) or other structures with plumbing that are not
associated with an existing SFR (Le., shops or garages with a bathroom).
iv.
Voluntary and mandatory measures of the Jefferson County seawater
intrusion policy apply to development proposals within the coastal, at risk,
and high risk SIPZ. and upon Marrowstone Island. in the following manner, in
addition to all existing applicable Health Codes:
A. COASTAL SIPZ
L VOLUNTARY ACTIONS:
-1-.~Water conservation measures.
2.lnstallation of a flow motor.
ð-.~On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
4-.llil-Submittal of data to County.
!.L-.MANDATORY ACTIONS:
-1-.~For proof of potable water on a building permit application,
applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system if
available.
2-.~lf public water is unavailable, an individual well may be used I
as proof of potable water subject to the following
requirements:
eLChloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well
water sample submitted with building permit application.
2. Installation of a source-totalizinQ meter (flow).
ð-.~If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system
may be used as proof of potable water.
B. AT RISK SIPZ
L-VOLUNTARY ACTIONS:
-1-.12L-Water conservation measures.
!.L-.MANDATORY ACTIONS:
-1-.!.êJ For proof of potable water on a building permit application,
applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system if
available.
2-.ít2.LJf public water is unavailable, an individual well may be used
as proof of potable water subject to the following
requirements:
eLChloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well
water sample submitted with building permit application.
eLlnstaliation of a flew.-source-totalizing meter (flow).
eLOn-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
e4-,-Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per
monitoring program.
ð-.~If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system
may be used as proof of potable water.
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
7
June 2, 2003
C. HIGH RISK SIPZ
I. MANDATORY ACTIONS:
- -í-.~Water conservation measures (per list maintained by UDC
Administrator).
2-.í!2L-For proof of potable water on a building permit application,
applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system if
available.
3-.~lf public water is unavailable, an individual well may only be
used as proof of potable water subject to the following
requirements:
eL Variance from Chapter 173 WAC standards granted by
Ecology per WAC 173-160-106 for a new groundwater
well within 100 feet of a sea-salt water intrusion area per
WAC 173-160-171 (Le., within 100 feet of a groundwater
source showing chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L
or within 100 feet of the marine shoreline); or for an
existing groundwater well not subject to an Ecology
variance, applicant must provide evidence through a
hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an
Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6.1 O.e). which
shall be transmitted to Ecoloqy for review. ef-a
reasonable probability that the subject aquifer will not be
degraded by the proposeddemonstratinq that use of the
well does not cause any detrimental interference with
existinq water riqhts and is not detrimental to the public
interest.
e~Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well
water sample submitted with building permit application.
e;Llf chloride concentration exceeds 250 mg/L in a water
sample submitted for a building permit, then the property
owner shall be required to record a restrictive covenant
that indicates a chloride reading exceeded the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard
(250 mg/L) under the National Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations.
e4-=-..lnstallation of a flew-source-totalizinq meter (flow).
e~On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
e~Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per
monitoring program.
If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system
may be used as proof of potable water.
(d)
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
8
June 2, 2003
D. MARROWSTONE ISLAND3
In addition to all voluntary and mandatory actions associated with the
applicable SIPZ as described above, the followinq measures applv to all
development proposals on Marrowstone Island that include qroundwater
withdrawal:
I.
VOLUNTARY ACTIONS
(a) Installation of timers toqether with new well pump
installations to enable pump use limitation to low demand
times.
II.
MANDATORY ACTIONS
(a) The use of a well proposed as proof of potable water for a
new building permit shall be conditioned through the buildinq
permit such that enrollment in a County-sponsored
monitorinq proqram is required. includinq periodic submittal
of flow and chloride data as determined by the County.
Installation of a source-totalizinq meter (flow).
Installation of a variable speed pump, controllable from the
surface, in order to enable reduction of withdrawal rate, as
may be necessary.
Installation of a 1.000-qallon minimum storaqe tank that shall
conform to the ANSI/NSF Standard 61.
Marrowstone Island Ground\l':ater Use limitation:
Ground';.'ater 'Nithdra'Nal from all individual exempt wells.
new and existinq, on Marro'Nstone Island shall be limited to
1000 qallons per dav under the a~thoritv of the Growth
Manaqement Act (RCVV 36.70.^.).
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(10) Mitigating Conditions. The Administrator may require additional mitigating
conditions, as needed, to provide protection to all Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas to
ensure that the subject land or water use action will not pose a risk of significant
adverse groundwater quality impacts. The determination of significant adverse
groundwater quality impacts will be based on the Antidegradation policy included in
Chapter 173-200 WAC.
(11) Authority for Denial. In all Critical Aquifer Recharqe Areas. +!he Administrator may I
deny approval if the protection standards contained herein or added mitigating
conditions cannot prevent significant adverse groundwater quality impacts.
[END]
3 This section 0 was originally established as part of an interim ordinance adopted on March 3, 2003.
Adoption of this ordinance maintains this section in the code, as modified per the Planning Commission
recommendation and later through deliberation by the Board of County Commissioners.
4 This interim provision established on March 3, 2003 is hereby deleted through adoption of this
ordinance.
Ordinance Attachment:
MLA03-202
9
June 2, 2003